Forum:What is okay to rewrite?
This is a continuation of a conversation originally began at Talk:Gimel Daleth. The discussion references changes I made to the article that Gimel, the subject and original contributor, reverted. Here's a link to the reversion. Basically, I'd like to hear from the community about what other people should and should not be allowed to do when editing articles where they're not the primary contributor, particularly character articles. ---- My opinion is that all pages belong to the SW1ki (and MUSH) community. Your character article(s) doesn't really belong to you. That doesn't mean that you don't have a say in what can and cannot be changed. Articles are required to be accurate and as the primary and best source of information on your character(s), other people need to defer to you on your character's background. For instance, nobody can rewrite my character article and change my homeworld to Chandrila, because it's just not true. However, I believe things like formating, grammatical stylings, etc. are fair game for others to improve on. "Improve" is obviously an ambiguous term. Deciding what is and is not an improvement is something left to consensus, but the door is open for other people to make changes. I believe that while some things are up to you alone, you can't control everything about your articles. -- Xerxes 22:03, 15 March 2007 (UTC) *I think we've had this discussion before somewhere, but, as I said many times, I set up this Wiki over a year ago with the intentions on following the Wiki rules: your articles are fair game for editing. Naturally, there is a fine line, as Xerxes has pointed out... changing around my character's article to call him a Rodian who did so and so is obviously against the rules, but if Xerxes went in and changed a grammatical error or a clear error then I'd be fine with it. That's how it should be. As I've said before, if an editor wants to make a more major change to the content, then I feel the user should be contacted first via the MUSH or the talk page to discuss the changes before they're made so a consensus can be reached. --Danik Kreldin 22:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC) I think my point with this post is to reach a consensus on what kinds of changes are decided by consensus (consensus squared?) and which are decided by the original contributor. There are some things that are obviously on one side of the line or the other. Player decides the homeworld. Wiki decides the character template layout. What I'm really looking for is a better sense of where the actual line is located. -- Xerxes 22:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC) -- If it's a simple thing like a typo or changing a few letters to fix noun/verb agreement or the like, I for one would just do it. As long as the person isn't blatanly ego-pumping, more complex sentence structure issues can be a matter of style. When in doubt about the encyclopedic intent of someone's style, I'd post such questions to their talk page about it first. --Lolkje 22:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC) *The terms encyclopedic tone and in universe, neutral point of view are tossed around a lot. I believe these take precedence over personal style. Where there's a conflict, the general policies should win out. After all, there's a Story: namespace for creative writing. Main articles are supposed to be clear and informative. Is there consensus for this viewpoint? Or, could I create a Yoda article written completely with "Jedi, this little goblin was"-style sentences. -- Xerxes 23:19, 15 March 2007 (UTC) :-I must heartily agree that each and every article (emphasize _article_) should be encyclopedic in tone and in as neutral a point of view as possible. Articles are not to be advertisements or recruiting tools, not to be personal soliloqueys, and not to a blog of a character's (player's) everyday emotions and trevails. These are articles, not shrines. As mentioned before, this Wiki (and every other Wiki) are for public use and the articles are not owned by any one person. :-That said, I go bouncing through the Wiki daily looking for three things (if anyone is trying to decipher my random madness) — 1) grammar, spelling, and/or structural errors... 2) SW (first) and MUSH (second, because it's more focused and specific) canon validity (it's more egregious if someone claims they're from the planet Vulcan than from Mandalore, for example) and veracity... 3) Wiki-formating, structure, and link errors. I read _extremely_ fast, and if anything jumps out at me, I fix it, and then go on to the next one. If I'm making revisions to someone's character article, it's because it qualifies under one of those three qualifiers... not because I personally disagree with the content. If I restructure and shuffle around a whole article, it's because I'm endeavouring to reformat it to be like the rest of the Wiki — to a commonplace standard. :-If there is a strong desire to have character-relative or arcane language in the content, then it should be included as a quote (can either be first person or third person, with an imagined third person... see Jonathan Webb for a very good example) amidst otherwise neutral, encyclopedic content. The only instances where NPOV and encyclopedic tone are ignored are RPlog:'s, '''Story:'s, and 'Report:'s. -- Hawke / Rtufo 03:10, 16 March 2007 (UTC) :-This is one of those things I am conflicted on. While technically your character's page is not yours. I feel that IP (Intellectual Property) should be respected by the community. While the tone and language should remain in a neutral encyclopedic tone. While yeah, Danik's example is rather blatant, what about subtle changes. For the most part I don't mind mechanical changes. Editing my grammar, spelling and sentence structure are fine as long as the heart of the content remains unchanged. If the Yoda style language was being used in context of a player saying something or writing something then it is fine, but content changes seem a little personal. I am not implying that anyone is making changes to content without commenting on discussion pages or with the originator, but the Wiki-rules do not forbid it and in places even encourage it. I just think that even where the rules don't require something, we should act with courtesy. --ImperialFH 03:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC) **Should the wiki rules forbid certain types of edits? That's kind of the question I'm asking everyone to think about. Though it's existed for over a year now, SW1ki policy is largely undefined. I think we're all willing to play by the rules. We just need to come up with some rules to play by. -- Xerxes 03:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC) *It's difficult.. there are some people who quit using the Wiki simply because they didn't like their character pages being edited, even though they were just format corrections. --Danik Kreldin 03:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC) -- I think it's not really all that much about the pages being edited, at least not entirely, so much as the person not being told(on the game) that the pages are edited. I know I'd be irritated if someone went around changing Rasi's page without telling me. See where I'm going? -- :- I don't think there's anything wrong at all with fixing spelling, grammatical, or link errors on any page. I don't think you should feel it necessary to inform the source player of a character page on that either. I do think that in the case of Gimel's article, it was okay to re-write it so that it's more clear and concise in nature. It would be good to inform him that its happening, but there's clearly a need for articles to make sense to their readers. :- As far as page structure, I for one do appreciate it when certain types of articles are designed similarly. For example (and this is just my personal preference), I like the way my character pages are set up (Luke, Korynn, Kyle), with a short summary, a Biography (pre-character BG), IC History, Recent Events, then other information as necessary. But there's no stated standard for character pages, aside from the template. If there were an official policy of how character pages were to be laid out, then all of us would suddenly have the right to modify other's character pages to fit that layout. The only other change that I think should be freely done (though followed by a notice to the player), is the shortening of articles, as we've discussed relating to Danik Kreldin's article for example. Many players have done this, like Krieg Inrokana or Jal'Dana Rall, who have taken potentially huge sections, summarized them on the main page, and moved the large sections to sub-pages. This is an '''incredibly smart way of doing things, because it doesn't force visitors to read through a ridiculously huge character article... unless they click the sub-pages and choose to read the details. :- On a slightly different subject, people should avoid altering articles that they don't have anything to do with, as far as game-history articles. For example, I will not touch the Imperial Blitzkrieg page because I never RPed in a single scene of it. If I notice a link error or a grammatical problem, I may change that, but otherwise I will not. By similar comparison, people who weren't involved in the Nar Shaddaa Revolution should not alter that article unless it's a grammatical change. In the case of org/faction/EU-cannonical-feature ships, someone like Prospero could make a change to an NR page if it is a relevant piece of pre-MUSH history, but he should probably chat with NR leadership in-game first. "Hey, I wanted to add a blurb about the history of NRSC Home One from the pre-game era. Is that okay?" "What's the blurb"? "It's this. (blah blah blah)." "Sure, that's fine, but I don't think the (third blah) part is neccessary." "Okay, cool." (alotted time of chat: 1 minute 23 seconds). --SW1 Kyle 12:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC) :* For the sake of argument let's say I made a change and added some content to the Imperial Blitzkrieg article. I never participated in the Imperial Blitzkrieg, so by your stated rationale that's wrong. But, what if the information I add is correct? What behavior are we trying to limit? Trespassing on other people's turf or adding incorrect content? Also, is there a different standard for pages that are "in progress" vs. established pages? -- Xerxes 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) :**Well, if the information you got was from a log, or if you secretly have an alt or an RP Judge or Wizard who was watching the events, that's cool, but if the info you're adding is second-hand (so-and-so-said) information, that's probably not a good idea. As far as pages "in progress", I'd say let the prime contributor work on it without anything but spelling/grammatical fixes, because that person probably has an idea of where its going. Using the talk page is a great thing there. --SW1 Kyle 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC) How does your point of view compare with wikipedia's Be Bold standard? -- Xerxes 16:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC) *I agree with Kyle on this one, so I'll throw in my two cents. I don't think all of the Wikipedia standards apply here, including be bold. Since we're a community of people who have to actively work with each other every day to negotiate scenes and seek each other out for RP to advance everyone's plots, fostering policies that make everyone feel safe and comfortable and valued is just as important as wiki 'neutrality' or 'clarity.' Imagine asking all of the UN Ambassadors to agree on standards for a UNwiki, and you'll approach our situation here. In the specific case of the suggested grammatical and structural changes to Gimel's page, I read the original version, and it didn't seem blatantly non-neutral or obscure to me to neccessitate immediate intervention by an editor. I'm also in the school of 'help people help themselves,' and in that spirit I've taken the few minutes of extra time to approach players in game and ask 'would you like help with your wiki page?' People will probably be more appreciative of 'would you like suggestions for your page?' than 'the phrasing style on your page has already been changed.' --Lolkje 16:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ** I agree that there was no blatant impetus for the change made to Gimel's page. If there were, this forum post wouldn't exist. Blatant instances are easy to figure out. The point here is to explore the grey areas. I would suggest that rules that establish neutrality and clarity, rules that are well-published and documented, rules that apply to everyone and everyone must abide, rules that don't vary from instance to instance are the policies that make everyone feel safe and comfortable and valued. If everyone's pages have to meet the same standards and are edited and treated in the same way, no one can realistically claim that they are being picked on. I'm not saying the 'ask people before you change their pages' is necessarily a bad policy. I'm just saying that if it's going to be THE policy we need to apply it to everyone and explicitly document any exceptions. In regards to the UN. I'm not sure how that metaphor applies. If everyone had to be consulted on every matter, nothing would ever get done. Instead people propose things, everybody votes, and the most votes wins. That kind of consensus is at the heart of wiki. Be Bold, be proactive, but don't be reckless. Seek and defer to consensus on disputed things. -- Xerxes 23:01, 16 March 2007 (UTC) ***My point in a nutshell is that if it's a gray area where a page could be clearer, and can be interpreted in a non-encyclopedic manner by some, that I suggest the first step should either be: ask on the Talk page if other people have the same confusion/interpretation (i.e. put it to an informal 'vote') -or- ask the player directly if your interpretation is what they mean (i.e. step over into a corridor off the main floor for a 'chat'), both images I was trying to evoke with the UN metaphor. I don't think the regular Wikipedia has quite the same concerns about mainining emotional relationships and community outside the wiki that we have. --Lolkje 23:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC) **** With the Gimel example, I don't think it's a question of whether the section was or was not written in a clear encyclopedic fashion. I think it obviously wasn't. It's also not a question of whether or not the meaning of article changed. It didn't. The issue is that Gimel prefers the original, non-encyclopedic version. The question, as I see it, is which takes precedence -- the player's personal voice or encywclopedic tone? On that question alone, I think the encyclopedic tone take precedence. I'm willing to admit that other people can judge encyclopedic differently, that my idea of obvious might not be in synch with everyone else... but that's where consensus enters the picture. -- Xerxes 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC) ***Since this isn't a normal style wiki, I agree that there should be more of an effort to "ask first". Even in the case of the recent debacle regarding Danik and the WEG NPC +stat pages... he could have posted a forum asking about it since he has no access to the MUSH itself, and refrained from adding until Prospero or I or someone like Jal'Dana or Krieg were able to confer with him over forums. This wiki does need to reflect the MUSH, if it is really a SW1 wiki, so there needs to be some interpersonal communication about things like that which would affect faction(s) and game-play. --SW1 Kyle 13:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC) **** I'm fine with more "ask first" policies. What I don't want to see is "always ask first". People need to be free and able to get things done. The wiki is a collaborative endeavor which supposes that people aren't necessarily going to (or even need to) get things right on the first try, but that less than perfect content will be revised and improved over time. There's a balance to be found between the control some people rightly want over content and the freedom to let others make contributions and edits. We just haven't found that balance yet. -- Xerxes 15:39, 17 March 2007 (UTC) I have no problem having things repaired that need repair, and have been known to 'serial edit' others' pages because of recurring typos, spelling errors or misplaced words. But when something isn't wrong it should be left alone. I use archaic grammar occasionally, in speech as well as in writing. My personal vocabulary is extensive. I've spent most of my life defining words I use that others have never heard or informing them that 'shan't' is most certainly the proper contraction of 'shall not' and other such explanations. It is not our (as in we who tend to take communication past the necessary grunts required to make other people do what we want and move to presenting information in text for others to utilize and enjoy) job to assure that everyone understands everything we say. My objection was to the implication that my correct albeit archaic grammatical structure was somehow wrong. I'll leave phrasings that make sense but seem convoluted on others' pages if I believe that their intent is to use just that sort of phrasing. If understanding exists, it shouldn't be anyone's problem. Alienplayer 15:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC) :–AP, I'm not targetting you specifically, but you bring up an issue very much poignant to this discussion — who is the judge of "... when something isn't wrong it should be left alone"? Communication is meant to be established along a baseline or foundation upon which the common audience can interact, and then elaborate from there. I'm all for increasing the "standards" or "commons" of my fellow audience — for example, I don't stoop to the bang-two-rocks-together medievalist butchery with which today's youth assault language — but there's a point at which you have to ask "What would Bob or Barbi understand?". Are articles about Shakespeare written in Shakespearean, Old-English prose? Of course not! Are articles about Neanderthals written in cave-painting pictographs? That would be silly! Are articles about futuristic xeno-dynamics written in xenophilic technobabble? Surely n... well, there's the whole Star Trek craze, but I digress. : There are two points to keep in mind when reading/using wikipedia-based material — 1) no one owns any article and 2) articles are to be about the subject, not to be integral to or an expression of the subject itself. Again, I'm saying this to everyone, not just to AP — the Wiki here (or any Wiki, for that matter) is not a means of self-expression. The articles here are not ye olde' angelfire or geocities "homepages". Your character is yours, but the article about said character is not yours. Granted, you may be (and, if it's your character, you are) the leading expert about that character's life, and may post bales of information about the character, but you do not own the article about the character, and that article may be reshaped and reformatted by the reading public for the reading public to better comprehend it. The player behind Ullan, for example, is Dutch. If he wrote an entire article about Ullan in Dutch, would it be wrong? No. Would it need to be translated? For goodness sakes yes! Of course there is some degree of "lost in translation" morphing that will occur, and it may not read exactly as player-behind-Ullan intended, but it would be readable to the public. Shaping/reshaping of article content, in order to best represent what player-behind-Ullan was trying to convey and the readability of the article to a broad audience, would be undertaken between and amongst the community... player-behind-Ullan included, if he so (and I'd hope he would) wishes. : If someone was to make revisions to one of my articles (Sarians, for example) to make it more readable to the general public, then by all means they can. They're supposed to. Would I have to be consulted first? No. They're under no obligation to, there's no rule that says they have to, and I don't own the Sarian article. I would/might be upset, though, not because they changed something... but because, for example, if they had changed it to state that Sarians have four arms, or are naturally Force-adept, or walk with a Rastafarian gait... they'd be wrong. They'd have altered not the page itself, but the subject matter. Get the picture? -- Hawke / Rtufo 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC) :* This is exactly where my complaints about the new WEG NPC +stat pages are coming from. Just as much as Sarians may not have four arms, the MUSH Admin, RPA, and Imperial Faction administrators may not agree with what Imperial Intelligence Agent (stats) claims. That makes the article wrong and irrelevant. --SW1 Kyle :** I can see your point. The NPC stats as taken directly from WEG sources are not correct for the MUSH. However, I don't believe anyone is claiming the information is correct as-is, nor was it originally correct and then changed (it just didn't exist before). Given that the original intended topic of this discussion concerned how to handle rewrites, I'd prefer to keep the NPC discussion separate and focus on boundaries / policies for revisions. Perhaps we should create a separate forum post to address the implications of the NPC stats effort? -- Xerxes 01:49, 20 March 2007 (UTC)